In collaborative inquiry learning, dyads use more team regulation than task regulation in all support conditions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 In all three conditions students used significantly more team regulation than task regulation, with large paired-t effect sizes (eta squared .53, .63, .86). → Saab 2012

Evidence¶

Saab 2012¶

Saab, N., van Joolingen, W., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2012). Support of the collaborative inquiry learning process: influence of support on task and team regulation. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9068-6

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Paired-samples t-tests comparing task and team regulation frequencies within each of three conditions (Control N=12, RIDE N=21, CHT N=15 dyads). The Control condition showed η² = .53, a large effect size; the article also reports η² = .63 (RIDE) and η² = .86 (CHT), both large, with p<.000.

"In all conditions students used significantly more Team regulation than Task regulation. In the Control condition, students used more Team regulation (M=44.42, SD=31.81) than Task regulation (M=16.83, SD=9.46), t(11)= −3.84, p<.003). The eta squared statistic (.53) indicated a large effect size."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• RIDE communication instruction and RIDE plus CHT both increase team regulation relative to no support — related
• Team regulation correlates positively with learning results only in the CHT condition — related
• Dyads given the full Process Coordinator used the regulative tool about three times as long and twice as often as dyads with the empty version — related
• Instruction combining communication rules (RIDE) and a hypothesis tool (CHT) increases team regulation in computer-supported collaborative inquiry, and team regulation relates to learning outcomes only in that combined condition — related